The elucidation of a compound's Mechanism of Action (MoA) is a challenging task in the drug discovery process, but it is important in order to rationalise phenotypic findings and to anticipate potenti Show more
The elucidation of a compound's Mechanism of Action (MoA) is a challenging task in the drug discovery process, but it is important in order to rationalise phenotypic findings and to anticipate potential side-effects. Bioinformatic approaches, advances in machine learning techniques and the increasing deposition of high-throughput data in public databases have significantly contributed to recent advances in the field, but it is not straightforward to decide which data and methods are most suitable to use in a given case. In this review, we focus on these methods and data and their applications in generating MoA hypotheses for subsequent experimental validation. We discuss compound-specific data such as -omics, cell morphology and bioactivity data, as well as commonly used supplementary prior knowledge such as network and pathway data, and provide information on databases where this data can be accessed. In terms of methodologies, we discuss both well-established methods (connectivity mapping, pathway enrichment) as well as more developing methods (neural networks and multi-omics integration). Finally, we review case studies where the MoA of a compound was successfully suggested from computational analysis by incorporating multiple data modalities and/or methodologies. Our aim for this review is to provide researchers with insights into the benefits and drawbacks of both the data and methods in terms of level of understanding, biases and interpretation â and to highlight future avenues of investigation which we foresee will improve the field of MoA elucidation, including greater public access to -omics data and methodologies which are capable of data integration. Show less
Morphological and gene expression profiling can cost-effectively capture thousands of features in thousands of samples across perturbations by disease, mutation, or drug treatments, but it is unclear Show more
Morphological and gene expression profiling can cost-effectively capture thousands of features in thousands of samples across perturbations by disease, mutation, or drug treatments, but it is unclear to what extent the two modalities capture overlapping versus complementary information. Here, using both the L1000 and Cell Painting assays to profile gene expression and cell morphology, respectively, we perturb human A549 lung cancer cells with 1,327 small molecules from the Drug Repurposing Hub across six doses, providing a data resource including dose-response data from both assays. The two assays capture both shared and complementary information for mapping cell state. Cell Painting profiles from compound perturbations are more reproducible and show more diversity but measure fewer distinct groups of features. Applying unsupervised and supervised methods to predict compound mechanisms of action (MOAs) and gene targets, we find that the two assays not only provide a partially shared but also a complementary view of drug mechanisms. Given the numerous applications of profiling in biology, our analyses provide guidance for planning experiments that profile cells for detecting distinct cell types, disease phenotypes, and response to chemical or genetic perturbations. Show less